Very interesting post. It touches what I had been thinking since I "came back"* to Steemit since joining some time ago.

Back then the content seemed utterly vacuous, and the replies/ comments were almost never critical in any way. It always seemed to be people just "kissing ass", with comments at least as devoid of depth as the original content itself. A lot of the time it seemed like utterly generic responses to every posting made.

Of course I didn't know about bots on these types of sites at that time.

So I came back to check it out, and it seems to have even gotten worse!

I had thought that the meaningless content was due to the site having been fairly new, and it would attract some more deep content as time passed and content creators from around the internet migrated over, started cross-posting and maybe even taking up residence.

Well, the surge in quality content creators does not seem to have been realized, even though they stood to make real honest-to-goodness cash for content.

It seems fair to say the incentive structure surrounding the site dramatically discourages users from posting even remotely critical content and/or comments/ replies. The reality that seems to have developed is that negative comments or posts are just not worth the risk, as one stands to lose potential Steem value by getting down-voted.

Is my assessment correct?

It seems a fatal design flaw that results in everyone walking on eggshells and being unwilling to think a deep thought that someone might find disagreeable, which in the end could cost the poster/ commenter some Steem currency/tokens.

Very interesting how perversely incentives can work in closed systems like Steemit/Steem. This is absolutely a topic for an Economics, Psychology or Sociology dissertation!

*In truth I was never really "here" even then. Just a lurker then, as now.